No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Sahasaḥ Svajaḥ in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, 13.2 (Pañcikā 3.26)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
Extract
At the beginning of the thirteenth adhyāya of the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa occurs a story which narrates how the metre Gāyatrī brought from heaven soma for gods and sages. Having gone to heaven, she frightened the guardians of soma, picked it up in her feet and mouth, and started to return. At this point, one of the guardians of soma, Kṛśānu by name, shot an arrow at her which cut off the nail of her left foot. From that nail arose a porcupine (śalyakaḥ), and the fat (vaśam) that flowed became a barren cow (vaśā). The Brāhmaṇa text (as read by Keith, following Aufrecht) then goes on to say: atha yaḥ śalyo yad anīkam āsīt sa sarpo nirdaṁśy abhavat sahasaḥ svajo yāni parṇāni te manthāvalā yāni snāvāni te gaṇḍūpadā yat tejanaṃ so 'ndhāhiḥ so sā tatheṣur abhavat. Keith (Ṛgveda Brāhmaṇas (HOS, XXV), Cambridge, Mass., 1920) translates the passage as follows: ‘The socket and the point became a serpent, not biting; from its swiftness (came) the viper; the feathers became flying foxes, the sinews earthworms, the shaft the blind snake. Thus became the arrow’.
- Type
- Notes and Communications
- Information
- Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , June 1971 , pp. 376 - 379
- Copyright
- Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1971
References
1 Haug (Bombay, 1863) sahasasvajo, Bibl. Ind. (Calcutta, 1895–1906)Google Scholar and NSP (Bombay, 1925) sahasa svajo; Aufrecht (Bonn, 1879), ASS (Poona, 1896), and TSS (Trivandrum, 1942 ff.) sahasaḥ svajo.
2 Out of the different parts of the arrow mentioned here—śalya, anīka, tejana, parṇa, and snāvan—the first four also occur earlier in Ait. Br. (4.8). The meanings of parṇa and snāvan are not in doubt. The śalya ‘socket’ (Keith) has also been understood by all the Indian commentators as the metallic arrow-head (e.g. śalyaḥ kṛṣṇāyasanirmito bāṇāgre slhāpitaḥ Sāyaṇa). But about the meanings of anīka and tejana, there are differences of opinion, Sāyaṇa even being guilty of inconsistency. In Ait. Br., 4.8, he interprets anīka ‘point’ (Keith) as ‘shaft’ (patrayuktād bāṇamūlād ūrdhvavartī bhāgo mukliam) and tejana ‘shaft’ (Keith) as the ‘sharp point’ of the metal head (tasya lokasya tīkṣṇam agram). But while commenting on Ait. Br., 13.2. he reverses this position and takes anīka to mean the ‘tip’ of the arrow-head (śalyasya yad anīkaṁ mukham) and tejana to mean the ‘shaft’ (lohapatravyatiriktaṁ kāṣṭham). Ṣaḍguruśiṣya, whose commentary Sukhapradā has been published in the Trivandrum edition of Ait. Br. (1942), agrees with the latter explanation of Sāyaṇa (anīkam = agraḥ or śarasyāsyam and tejanam = yaṣṭiḥ). But Bhaṭṭabhāskara, excerpts from whose commentary have been published in the Trivandrum edition mentioned above, seems to agree somewhat with the former explanation of Sāyaṇa. According to him, anīka means mukha and together with śalya, the metallic arrow-head, it constitutes the daṇḍa of the arrow. But he differs from Sāyaṇa in that he does not take tejana to mean ‘sharp point’ but the part of the arrow which is placed on the bow-string (jyānidliānasthānam). It seems, however, that he refers to Sāyaṇa when he says mukhanaiśityam ity eke. On TS, 6.2.3, where anīka, śalya, and tejana occur as names of the parts of an arrow, Bhaṭṭabhāskara explains them as anīkam = mukham (iṣoḥ), śalyam = śarīraṃ pucchaṃ vā, and tejanam = dhārāṃ kāṣṭhaṃ vā.
3 This is following Sāyaṇa (daṃśanāsamarthaḥ sarpaḥ). According to Sāyaṇa, it is a non-poisonous water-snake called dundubha. Ṣaḍguruśiṣya also says that it is a non-biting snake but adds that it subsists on earth (mṛdbhakṣī daṃśanākṣamadantakaḥ). According to Bhaṭṭabhāskara, however, nirdaṃśī = nitarāṃ daṃśanaśīlaḥ.
4 According to BR svaja ‘viper’ is attested only in the AV and Ait. Br., according to MW also in the Āp. Śr. S.
5 So also Sāyaṇa and Ṣaḍguruśiṣya. Bhaṭṭabhāskara, however, says that it means mahāsar paḥ (ardhāhir seems to be a misprint for andhāhir).
6 ‘vehemence’ Haug.
7 So also Ṣaḍguruśiṣya and Bhaṭṭabhāskara.
8 cf. the meaning of mukham in the first explanation of Sāyaṇa, p. 376, n. 2, above.
9 When in Ait. Br., 4.8, an arrow is said to have three (triṣandhi) or four elements (catuḥsandhi), anīka and śalya are counted separately, the third and the fourth elements being tejana and parṇa. But when an arrow is said to have two elements (dviṣandhi), only śalya and tejana are mentioned, anīka being then included in the śalya.
10 As was seen above, Bhaṭṭabhāskara takes nirdarṃśī to be the name of the serpent. This is unlikely. In that case the Brāhmaṇa would not have added sarpaḥ. before it. The word andhāhiḥ ‘blind snake’ which occurs at the end of this section is also a description. Obviously that kind of snake did not have a special name.
11 ‘remote’ Keith, nikṛṣṭam Sāyaṇa, aśubham Ṣaḍguruśiṣya.
12 Pāṇ., 6.1.132.
13 A Sanskrit rendering of this paper will appear in the Pandit Rajeshvar Shastri Dravid felicitation volume.